People v. Jones CA3 ( 2024 )

Filed 10/25/24 P. v. Jones CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication
or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(San Joaquin)
----
THE PEOPLE, C099937
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos.
STKCRFE20040010405 &
v. SF094122A)
JEFFREY DUPREE JONES,
Defendant and Appellant.
Defendant Jeffrey Dupree Jones appeals following resentencing after the trial
court dismissed a prior strike and a prior serious felony enhancement. He claims we must
direct the trial court to correct his actual custody credits. The People properly concede
the error. We remand for the trial court to calculate defendant’s actual custody credits
but otherwise affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Defendant shot a man outside of a bar, striking his spine and leaving him
paralyzed. (People v. Jones (Dec. 31, 2008, C054903) [nonpub. opn.] (Jones).) He
attempted to shoot two other men but when he pulled the trigger, the gun did not fire.
1
(Ibid.) Defendant was arrested on December 2, 2004. A jury found defendant guilty of
two counts of attempted murder and one count of felon in possession of a firearm.
(Jones, supra, C054903.)
On January 16, 2007, the trial court sentenced defendant. The court awarded
defendant 776 days of actual custody credits.
In February 2007, the trial court modified defendant’s sentence. The abstract of
judgment filed on February 15, 2007, reflects credit for a total of 892 days (776 actual
days and 116 conduct credits). In 2008, defendant appealed, and we affirmed the
judgment. (Jones, supra, C054903.)
In May 2019, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) sent a
letter to the trial court stating the abstract of judgment may be wrong. A week later, the
trial court resentenced defendant. The trial court did not recalculate defendant’s custody
credits.
In 2022, the trial court issued an ex parte order for resentencing. After a hearing
on November 13, 2023, the trial court dismissed a prior strike and a prior serious felony
enhancement and resentenced defendant. The trial court did not recalculate defendant’s
custody credits.
In March 2024, defense counsel sent a letter to the trial court asking it to issue a
corrected abstract of judgment reflecting defendant’s accurate custody credits. The trial
court recalculated defendant’s custody credits. It took the 776 days of actual credits and
116 custody credits reflected on the abstract of judgment, and calculated an additional
6,116 days from the original sentencing date to the November 13, 2023, resentencing
date, for a total of 7,008 days.
DISCUSSION
Defendant correctly contends this matter must be remanded to calculate
defendant’s actual custody credits and issue an amended abstract of judgment reflecting
the accurate number of days defendant served prior to the 2023 resentencing hearing.
2
Pursuant to Penal Code section 2900.1, “when a sentence is modified while in
progress, the ‘time’ already served ‘shall be credited upon any subsequent sentence [the
defendant] may receive upon a new commitment for the same criminal act or acts.’ ”
(People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, 37.) This requires the trial court to update
the actual custody credits on the amended abstract of judgment to reflect “all actual days”
spent in custody “whether in jail or prison” up until the resentencing. (Ibid.; italics
omitted.)
DISPOSITION
The matter is remanded for the trial court to calculate defendant’s actual custody
credits. The trial court shall prepare an amended abstract of judgment and forward a
certified copy to CDCR. The judgment is otherwise affirmed.
/s/
MESIWALA, J.
We concur:
/s/
ROBIE, Acting P. J.
/s/
WISEMAN, J.*
* Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, assigned by
the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
3